Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I know what it was, but it was still a social event that went on the the wee small hours, and some were worse for wear when they departed. There was no falsehood in my post.
I don’t see how any of you can view that as not being worse than Boris receiving a cake just as he was assembling for a pre-planned meeting.
But there you go…
|
It was a falsehood to state the police did nothing about Starmer's meal and drinks. You knew that they investigated and cleared him as being inline with Covid guidance at the time.
It was false to state it was a party at a friend's house. It was held at the Miners Hall where they had worked during the day.
Stating it to be a social event is a loose definition as all events involving people are social! The question is whether it was a work or non-work event. It was found by the police to be a work one.
I doubt your quip about it going onto the wee small hours is anything more than wishful thinking.
It's not what we think about BoJo's birthday party, it's what the police think. they found it was not a work event.
BoJo has moved on. I encourage you to join him.
---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Apparently, after stating that documents and correspondence are "unambiguously irrelevant", they also state they don’t have the documents and correspondence they refer to - how do they know they are "unambiguously irrelevant", then?
Also, Baroness Hallett requires a signed statement verified by oath to back up the claim that the Cabinet Office does not have copies of Boris Johnson’s WhatsApps or diaries - and a detailed chronology setting out if it had copies and any correspondence with Johnson about it.
About to get very interesting….
|
Interesting. On what basis did they decide that the WhatsApp messages and diaries were unambiguously irrelevent? Did they just take Johnson's word for that?